Is it just the luck of the draw?

Vampireskiss

If someone commits a mortal sin and is not sorry when they die, is that person doomed to go to hell.

I ask this because most peoples personalities are formed due to what kind of parenting one had so is it fair if someone who had a fairly abusive non-loving upbringing to be judged on what they do when if they had been in a normal up bringing they would have turned out a good person?

antiskeptic

Vampireskiss wrote: »

If someone commits a mortal sin and is not sorry when they die, is that person doomed to go to hell.

There's no such thing as a mortal sin. That doctrine, whilst a tradition in the Roman Catholic church has no scriptural basis.

I ask this because most peoples personalities are formed due to what kind of parenting one had so is it fair if someone who had a fairly abusive non-loving upbringing to be judged on what they do when if they had been in a normal up bringing they would have turned out a good person?

Your ending up 'in heaven' or hell isn't down to what you do. If it was then everyone wouldl be in hell because "all have sinned". The person brought up by good parents sins and the person brought up by bad parents sins.

When it comes to judgement, God is in a position to take account of the influence of a persons circumstances as contributing factor. Therefore someone whole stole because they had stealing modelled to them in their childhood would be judged other than a white collar criminal who knew in the fullest way possible that what they were doing was wrong.

Everyone has a conscience however so no one can plead ignorance.

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's no such thing as a mortal sin. That doctrine, whilst a tradition in the Roman Catholic church has no scriptural basis.



Your ending up 'in heaven' or hell isn't down to what you do. If it was then everyone wouldl be in hell because "all have sinned". The person brought up by good parents sins and the person brought up by bad parents sins.

When it comes to judgement, God is in a position to take account of the influence of a persons circumstances as contributing factor. Therefore someone whole stole because they had stealing modelled to them in their childhood would be judged other than a white collar criminal who knew in the fullest way possible that what they were doing was wrong.

Everyone has a conscience however so no one can plead ignorance.

So Naturally born Psychopaths, will be absolved by God then??

PDN

antiskeptic wrote:

Everyone has a conscience however so no one can plead ignorance.

Malty_T wrote: »

So Naturally born Psychopaths, will be absolved by God then??

How on earth you get from antiskeptic's statement to your conclusion is a mystery.

Stephentlig

There's no such thing as a mortal sin. That doctrine, whilst a tradition in the Roman Catholic church has no scriptural basis.

John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.

the doctrine of mortal or venial sin does have a scriptural basis, it doesnt say literally ''mortal/veniel'' but its there, it also comes through tradition, and the request to listen to tradition is also in the Bible. 1thess 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Your ending up 'in heaven' or hell isn't down to what you do. If it was then everyone wouldl be in hell because "all have sinned". The person brought up by good parents sins and the person brought up by bad parents sins.

all have sinned refers to the doctrine of original sin not the commitence of sin. the doctrine of ''once saved always saved'' has no biblical basis.

Matt:7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

When it comes to judgement, God is in a position to take account of the influence of a persons circumstances as contributing factor.

was it the same way 500 years ago or is this a recent change?

PDN

Deleted User wrote: »

was it the same way 500 years ago or is this a recent change?

No, God has always been in a position to do that. No recent change.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

How on earth you get from antiskeptic's statement to your conclusion is a mystery.

A psychopath is someone without a conscience...a naturally born psychopath is someone born without conscience ... it's a legit question : How does God judge that person??

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

A psychopath is someone without a conscience...a naturally born psychopath is someone born without conscience ... it's a legit question : How does God judge that person??

They may be without conscience in that they don't feel guilt for their actions, but they still know the difference between right and wrong. They cannot plead ignorance.

For example, a psychopath will get very angry at you if you break into their house. They understand that you have wronged them.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

They may be without conscience in that they don't feel guilt for their actions, but they still know the difference between right and wrong. They cannot plead ignorance.

For example, a psychopath will get very angry at you if you break into their house. They understand that you have wronged them.

Well now this is a thought experiment.:)

You're just picked a 'moderate' psychopath... how bout we go worst case scenario?
One who feels no emotion AT ALL (plenty of these guys/gals) and, as an addded bonus; also feels no physical pain (not sure if this particular scenario has happened yet, but there are humans born without the ability to feel pain). And this person is born with both those ailments..

How does God judge him/her?

Note : No emotion includes no moral compass.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Well now this is a thought experiment.:)

You're just picked a 'moderate' psychopath... how bout we go worst case scenario?
One who feels no emotion AT ALL (plenty of these guys/gals) and, as an addded bonus; also feels no physical pain (not sure if this particular scenario has happened yet, but there are humans born without the ability to feel pain). And this person is born with both those ailments..

How does God judge him/her?

Note : No emotion includes no moral compass.

That person does have a moral compass. If you try to steal their lunch from them they will clearly state that you are doing something wrong.

They may not feel guilt for their actions, but that does not excuse them. Our feelings are not the ultimate guide to right and wrong. If they were then there would be nothing wrong with racism or homophobia.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

That person does have a moral compass. If you try to steal their lunch from them they will clearly state that you are doing something wrong.

And on that note, if psychos were people that just did what came naturally to them then they wouldn't do their evil acts in such a clandestine manner. Take Jack the Ripper for instance. If he was just doing what simply came naturally to him then why didn't he just do it in broad daylight for all to see? Its the same with all serial killers and serial rapists, they choose the most opportune time. Why? Because they know what they are doing is wrong, hence the hiding in dark alleys and what not. Their own consciences will condemn them in the end.

chozometroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

And on that note, if psychos were people that just did what came naturally to them then they wouldn't do their evil acts in such a clandestine manner. Take Jack the Ripper for instance. If he was just doing what simply came naturally to him then why didn't he just do it in broad daylight for all to see? Its the same with all serial killers and serial rapists, they choose the most opportune time. Why? Because they know what they are doing is wrong, hence the hiding in dark alleys and what not. Their own consciences will condemn them in the end.

Their pleasure comes from causing suffering. So, it is the knowledge of how evil it is that makes it worthwhile. I truly believe all of these cases involve demons. So the question is whether or not the person is accountable for making the initial decisions that were the first steps in going "down the wrong path" and invited demonic influence that eventually took control of them. I guess this opens up the discussion as to how early in life can someone truly become consumed by evil.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

There's no such thing as a mortal sin. That doctrine, whilst a tradition in the Roman Catholic church has no scriptural basis.

Stephentlig wrote: »

John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

a) What has this to do with the doctrine of mortal sin. I can only imagine that you are (silently) suggesting that the RC church is a God-appointed descendent of the fledgling church and that it's pronouncements are authorititive. Whatever about that notion, the point remains: there is no scriptural basis for the RC doctrine of mortal sin

b) The text doesn't say a thing about oral confession. You are engaging in your frequent tendency to read something into the text which isn't actually there. Reading your doctrine into the text - in order to support the request for a scriptural basis for your doctrine - is circular reasoning/argument.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.

The request wasn't for a recital of the cathecism. It was for a scriptural basis for the doctrine of mortal sin. As ever, vague scriptrue references, without any transparent attempt to connect the doctrine to the words, is all that is forthcoming.

the doctrine of mortal or venial sin does have a scriptural basis, it doesnt say literally ''mortal/veniel'' but its there,

I don't require that the words mortal/venial appear - anymore than I require the words "Trinity" or "salvation by faith and faith alone" to appear. What I do require is a scriptural basis for the notion of mortal sin as promoted by the RC church.

it also comes through tradition, and the request to listen to tradition is also in the Bible.

1thess 2:15
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

I've no problem with the traditions taught by the Bible. The Bible is considered God-breathed by me. It's the unbiblical traditions of the RC church I've little time for - including the one on mortal sin.

all have sinned refers to the doctrine of original sin not the commitence of sin. the doctrine of ''once saved always saved'' has no biblical basis.

I'm can't say I'm in agreement with your conclusion that all have sinned refers to original sin. This is Paul immediately preceding his statement and he refers to an OT passage that indicates the conscious, active participation in sin.

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any betterURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-27986b"]b[/URL? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Indeed, the whole movement of Romans 1-3 talks of the conscious, active participation of man in sin whether Jew or Gentile.

I haven't mentioned "once saved always saved" in order to have to defend the doctrine here.

Matt:7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Unfortunately for your position, failure to connect the scriptural dots exists here too:
a) No connection between the will of the father and works exists in this verse. Perhaps the will of the father being referred to here has to do with people believe in his son?

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

b) We have the recurring issue of cause and consequence here too. The protestant position is that the saved will do the will of the father and when they don't they are forgiven. The unsaved can't do the will of the father and this is who Jesus is referring to here.


c) The RC position must operate according to a similar notion as b) above otherwise all RC's will perish. It's not possible for anyone to do the will of the father 100% of the time and Jesus doesn't say anything about "trying" to do the will of the father. He just says that only those who do will be saved.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

That person does have a moral compass. If you try to steal their lunch from them they will clearly state that you are doing something wrong.

They may not feel guilt for their actions, but that does not excuse them. Our feelings are not the ultimate guide to right and wrong. If they were then there would be nothing wrong with racism or homophobia.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And on that note, if psychos were people that just did what came naturally to them then they wouldn't do their evil acts in such a clandestine manner. Take Jack the Ripper for instance. If he was just doing what simply came naturally to him then why didn't he just do it in broad daylight for all to see? Its the same with all serial killers and serial rapists, they choose the most opportune time. Why? Because they know what they are doing is wrong, hence the hiding in dark alleys and what not. Their own consciences will condemn them in the end.

Somehow I forgot about this until now ...

Both of you guys have completely missed the point. So, firstly, I'll ask do either of ye accept that animals can have morals? Secondly, there are people out there that have such screwed up brain chemistry that they do not feel or have any sense of morals. Yes, some of them know what they are doing is wrong, but that is only because the rational part of their brain is still functioning and they learned logic from society. The trouble is not everyone is exposed to society, so it is plausible that some psychopaths have no morals whatsoever and, more importantly, were never educated on the rules of society:
They don't know right from wrong and we may never have told them different...so how exactly would God treat those people??

The Mad Hatter

I think some of the posters on here should read up on psychopaths and sociopaths more generally. In general, a psychopath will know if he's acting illegally (and incidentally, that answers your Jack the Ripper question, SW), but they don't know that they're acting wrongly. That's what the entire condition is based on.

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think some of the posters on here should read up on psychopaths and sociopaths more generally. In general, a psychopath will know if he's acting illegally (and incidentally, that answers your Jack the Ripper question, SW), but they don't know that they're acting wrongly. That's what the entire condition is based on.

If they know that they are acting illegally then they are in possession of their senses and thus sane people doing acts that they know are contrary to the generally accepted moral code of society. If they got wind that someone was going to perpetrate on them what they perpetrate on their innocent victims they would not submit to it as though it was ok - unless they had some medical condition - nay they would defend themselves or flee. Hence why some do flee, or toy with the authorities and leave deceptive trails as to their identity and location or when cornered rat out others or kill themselves in order to avoid accountability for their evil acts. Just because they might have the uncontrollable urge to perpetrate these evil acts doesn’t mean that they are not to blame for them. They are, and will burn unless they repent of their evil self serving ways. Will they though? I think anyone who has let themselves go this far in order to satisfy their baser urges is literally playing with fire, but the door of forgiveness is always open and can still be walked through once their self serving ways are put away, this must be done first though, so the choice is theirs. Not many will though if they're gone this far in fairness, they are slaves of their own fleshy desires and without the power of God in them to deliver them from this bondage they are truly without hope. God can no more interest them than a lion can get interested in the morals of an impala.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they know that they are acting illegally then they are in possession of their senses and thus sane people doing acts that they know are contrary to the generally accepted moral code of society.

This is simply not true, Soulwinner. You are using some sort of pseudo-psychopath.

Greatest Asset of the Web AkA Wikipedia wrote:

They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.[74]

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

This is simply not true, Soulwinner. You are using some sort of pseudo-psychopath.

Was Jack the Ripper a pseudo-psychopath? By all accounts he was a highly skilled surgeon. Which meant that he was well off and well educated. He must have been in order to posses such skill in those days. He knew that what he was doing was illegal which means he was in full possession of his mental faculties when committing his heinous acts of depravity. He obviously thought that his acts where wrong because he avoided accountability by avoiding detection through living a lie. He was clever and sane.

antiskeptic

Malty_T wrote: »

The trouble is not everyone is exposed to society, so it is plausible that some psychopaths have no morals whatsoever and, more importantly, were never educated on the rules of society:

They don't know right from wrong and we may never have told them different...so how exactly would God treat those people??

God isn't relying on society to equip a person with a knowledge of right and wrong. He equips with with that knowledge directly via conscience. All men know God's truth (whether they believe in him or not) and are without excuse (says the Bible). That society shares a more or less common sense of morality merely reflects this common God-voice-heard. In other words, conscience is the cause of social morals (insofar as they align with Gods will) not a consequence of them.

The question is, how does someone become a psychopath? Given that Total Evil Doing (as defined by the Bible) and a denial of morality form central aspects of psychopathy we might suppose the condition to be that arrrived at by any man from whom God withdraws his restraining hand.

Given that wilful suppression of conscience is the mechanism that tends to lead all men towards deepening depravity/immorality (according to the Bible), with psychopathy being a terminus destination perhaps for one who travels to the end of that path, we might suppose the condition self-inflicted?

Certainly Romans 1 talks about God handing over men to wallow in their sin. The sense is one of God relinquishing his grip on a man. When you look at a psychopath you might well be looking at a man finally condemned and without hope of salvation.

God will not be mocked.

Soul Winner

antiskeptic wrote: »

Certainly Romans 1 talks about God handing over men to wallow in their sin. The sense is one of God relinquishing his grip on a man.

And notice also in Romans 1 why God turns them over to the base desires of their flesh. Because they simply fail to give Him glory for who He is, and for the work of His hands. What it is saying in essence is that those who cannot see that God created all things are willfully blind and as such incapable of seeing it.

Turtwig

Please guys just read up on psychopathy (and sociopathy) first, otherwise this will be pointless.

Soul, JTR was not a pseudo psychopath. All psychopaths can use logic, it's their inability for compassion,remorse and morals that make them psychopaths.

Here's a good article on relationships with a psychopath

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Please guys just read up on psychopathy first, otherwise this will be pointless.

Soul, JTR was not a pseudo psychopath. All psychopaths can use logic, it's their inability for compassion,remorse and morals that make them psychopaths.

Psychopaths know what they are doing is wrong, they just don't care.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Psychopaths know what they are doing is wrong, they just don't care.

Soul,

The crux is though that people who are born psychopaths can't learn morals unless someone else teaches them it (usually going to great pains in doing so) and even then the psychopath doesn't feel any morals.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Soul,

The crux is though that people who are born psychopaths can't learn morals unless someone else teaches them it (usually going to great pains in doing so) and even then the psychopath doesn't feel any morals.

What you feel is not the criteria for determining right from wrong. If it were then racism would not be wrong since racists think they are behaving righteously, and the 911 hijackers did nothing wrong because they felt it was right to murder all those people.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Soul,

The crux is though that people who are born psychopaths can't learn morals unless someone else teaches them it (usually going to great pains in doing so) and even then the psychopath doesn't feel any morals.

Would you say that there are things which even psychopaths would not like done to them though? If you tied up a psychopath and told him that you are going to chop his hand off, do you think he would just let you? If not then what good reasons do you think he'd give you for not chopping off his hand? Do you think that he would be dumb enough to say that he needs that hand in order to kill someone later on? Or do you think he would appeal to your better nature? I rest my case!

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

What you feel is not the criteria for determining right from wrong. If it were then racism would not be wrong since racists think they are behaving righteously, and the 911 hijackers did nothing wrong because they felt it was right to murder all those people.

Sorry PDN, it is. It's a bit complicated though because in a strange way racism or the 911 hiijackers weren't doing 'wrong' their sense of empathy was just different to that of yours and mine. Oh yes, though I agree what they did in yours and my view was a 100% wrong.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Would you say that there are things which even psychopaths would not like done to them though? If you tied up a psychopath and told him that you are going to chop his hand off, do you think he would just let you? If not then what good reasons do you think he'd give you for not chopping off his hand? Do you think that he would be dumb enough to say that he needs that hand in order to kill someone later on? Or do you think he would appeal to your better nature? I rest my case!

Em, I do recall creating a pyschopath that couldn't feel pain;)
And you are really dodging the issue here...the environment you are enforcing on our Buster (hey I gotta given him a name now that we're discussing him) is purely logical he can still use his head to figure out that two legs are more useful than one, however, he cannot use his head to figure out how stuff like love/hate works.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

he cannot use his head to figure out how stuff like love/hate works.

I can't speak for all psychopaths (hey what am I saying? :pac:), but I'm quite sure they can and do express hatred. JTR hated quite a lot.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

I can't speak for all psychopaths (hey what am I saying? :pac:), but I'm quite sure they can and do express hatred. JTR hated quite a lot.

Firstly we do not know for certain whether JTR was an actual pyschopath, he was a killer yes, but not all psychopaths are killers - some live normal lives, though it usually very difficult for them.

Expression of emotion is a funny thing, it is late now, so I can't research this further but methinks they have some limited cognitive abilities at understanding emotion, however, they can still express 'superficial' ones. In other words, they can smile but they can probably never mean it.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly we do not know for certain whether JTR was an actual pyschopath, he was a killer yes, but not all psychopaths are killers - some live normal lives, though it usually very difficult for them.

Expression of emotion is a funny thing, it is late now, so I can't research this further but methinks they have some limited cognitive abilities at understanding emotion, however, they can still express 'superficial' ones. In other words, they can smile but they can probably never mean it.

I would think there are endless degrees of psychopathy. As a Christian, I believe this is because of different levels of demonic influence, but this does not mean I think the person is innocent.

Symptoms of psychopathy (from Wikipedia)

• Common characteristics of those with psychopathy are:
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Superficial charm
• Criminal versatility
• Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others
• Impulse control problems
• Irresponsibility
• Inability to tolerate boredom
• Pathological narcissism
• Pathological lying
• Shallow affect
• Deceitfulness/manipulativeness
• Aggressive or violent tendencies, repeated physical fights or assaults on others
• Lack of empathy
• Lack of remorse, indifferent to or rationalizes having hurt or mistreated others
• A sense of extreme entitlement
• Lack of or diminished levels of anxiety/nervousness and other emotions
• Promiscuous sexual behavior, sexually deviant lifestyle
• Lack of personal insight
• Failure to follow any life plan
• Abuse of drugs including alcohol
• Disregard for conventional moral right and wrong

The Primary–Secondary distinction
Some people who engage in violent behavior possess psychopathic personality traits, such as callousness, grandiosity, and fearlessness, and presumably engage in such conduct because they care little about others. Others are impulsive and experience considerable anger, anxiety, and distress and may commit violent acts as a reaction to negative emotions, which are sometimes referred to as "crimes of passion." Indeed, the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy (including so-called neurotic psychopathy) has long been noted in the psychopathy literature (Karpman, 1947; Lykken, 1995).

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Em, I do recall creating a pyschopath that couldn't feel pain And you are really dodging the issue here...the environment you are enforcing on our Buster (hey I gotta given him a name now that we're discussing him) is purely logical he can still use his head to figure out that two legs are more useful than one, however, he cannot use his head to figure out how stuff like love/hate works.

Eh, no you didn't. You created a psychopath that couldn't feel morals not pain and PDN dealt with that by pointing our that we don't feel morals. You either agree with them or you don't. Psychopaths know the difference but just don't care eitherway, and as such are incapable of feeling empathy or sympathy with or for their victims or feeling any remorse for their actions, but they do know that their actions are unacceptable. Let us imagine that a psychopath is arrested for going to the shops to get his shopping. Do you think he would just accept that? Don't you think that he would make the objection on being arrested that he was only doing his shopping and nothing else? Or do you think that he would just go quietly and not say anything, thinking that he must have done something meriting his arrest? Only an insane person (psychopath or not) would just accept that his arrest was the right course of action in this case. My point is that even though psychos don't have any feelings they still know intellectually that their deeds are wrong.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Sorry PDN, it is. It's a bit complicated though because in a strange way racism or the 911 hiijackers weren't doing 'wrong' their sense of empathy was just different to that of yours and mine. Oh yes, though I agree what they did in yours and my view was a 100% wrong.

So, your question about pychopaths depends on you taking a subjective view of morality rather than believing in absolute right and wrong?

In that case it would seem that there's little point in addressing that point to Christians, who do believe in absolute morality.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

So, your question about pychopaths depends on you taking a subjective view of morality rather than believing in absolute right and wrong?

In that case it would seem that there's little point in addressing that point to Christians, who do believe in absolute morality.

Christians, as I understand, believe in an absolute morality that they get from God. He is the judge and jury of what is right and what is wrong. However, to actually understand God you must first read the bible (or at least, have somebody else tell you about it), right? Yet, for most who never read the bible they still have innate moral attributes which MRI scans have proven to be directly related to the structure of our brains. A psychopath, does not have the normal wiring, and a pure psychopath does not have any sense for right and wrong. I'm simply asking how does God judge a person who is born with no morals, and has been never been shown the codes of a society?

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Christians, as I understand, believe in an absolute morality that they get from God. He is the judge and jury of what is right and what is wrong. However, to actually understand God you must first read the bible (or at least, have somebody else tell you about it), right? Yet, for most who never read the bible they still have innate moral attributes which MRI scans have proven to be directly related to the structure of our brains. A psychopath, does not have the normal wiring, and a pure psychopath does not have any sense for right and wrong. I'm simply asking how does God judge a person who is born with no morals, and has been never been shown the codes of a society?

God's Word states that God's law is written on their hearts and that they do know what is right and what is wrong instinctively, so if that part of God's Word is wrong then what else is wrong? Just because known psychos display traits which suggest otherwise now doesn't mean that they always did display these traits. I believe that there is a part of our brains which houses and controls these functions and that if damaged in life, can affect a person's behavior. Maybe the abnormalities found in some psychos is a genetic defect brought on in the womb or later. I would say that come judgment day God will have taken factors like these into account. If it turns out that the evil done was mostly due to these defects in the brain out of no fault of the perpetrator then the only way to come close to knowing what God might judge is to ask yourself what you would judge. How would you judge these people in this case? I would say that although handicapped from birth or whenever they still posses the ability to have faith and thus open the door for God's spirit to come into them in order to change them. So it will still be down to the fact that they refused to have faith in God and ask him for deliverance from their handicap which makes them do these terrible things that will be the deciding factor in their judgment. You cannot BS God, a measure of faith is given to everyone, it is what you do with that faith that determines your eternal destiny. You can put it in God or in anything else. – your choice.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Christians, as I understand, believe in an absolute morality that they get from God. He is the judge and jury of what is right and what is wrong. However, to actually understand God you must first read the bible (or at least, have somebody else tell you about it), right?

No, to understand God fully you would need to read the Bible. But the Bible itself teaches that certain principles are inherent in Creation itself so that those who reject God and his standards are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).

Yet, for most who never read the bible they still have innate moral attributes which MRI scans have proven to be directly related to the structure of our brains. A psychopath, does not have the normal wiring, and a pure psychopath does not have any sense for right and wrong. I'm simply asking how does God judge a person who is born with no morals, and has been never been shown the codes of a society?

I disagree with your assessment of a psychopath. According to Leah Giarratano (a clinical psychologist) "They know right from wrong. They just don’t care." http://randomhouseaustralia.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-psychopath/

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

No, to understand God fully you would need to read the Bible. But the Bible itself teaches that certain principles are inherent in Creation itself so that those who reject God and his standards are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).

I disagree with your assessment of a psychopath. According to Leah Giarratano (a clinical psychologist) "They know right from wrong. They just don’t care." http://randomhouseaustralia.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-psychopath/

Well Soul already answer the question:)

Anyhu, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, I agree that a psychopath can know right from wrong, the key thing is that someone else must show them what is right and what is wrong because they have no desire or instinctual feelings for it themselves.

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

Well Soul already answer the question:)

Anyhu, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, I agree that a psychopath can know right from wrong, the key thing is that someone else must show them what is right and what is wrong because they have no desire or instinctual feelings for it themselves.

Also, it isn't that they just don't care, they simply have no ability to care. They do not choose to care, they do not have that choice. They may, at some level, know what they are doing is not considered “normal” by other people, but they are likely to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I suppose it come down to the old “mad not bad” chestnut. Even fi they do know what they are doing is bad, there is nothing they can do about it.

MrP

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

What you feel is not the criteria for determining right from wrong. If it were then racism would not be wrong since racists think they are behaving righteously, and the 911 hijackers did nothing wrong because they felt it was right to murder all those people.

Or meateaters. Responsible for the needless and cruel deaths of countless innocent animals, but they feel that its all OK.